On Jul 30, 2007, at 16:26, Michael Thomas wrote:
Would it really be so horrible to, say, have a per day rate? I know
that there
are a lot of people who are only interested in one or two wg
meetings and
would just assume go home instead of hanging around, kibbutzing in
wg's
that you're only peripherally involved, etc. That in and of itself
may help
improve the SNR...
Mike
Edward Lewis wrote:
At 15:51 -0400 7/30/07, Matt Pounsett wrote:
I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I
consider to be a
related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm
interested
in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole
week.
I can relate, I left Chicago on Tuesday.
What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year
for each
area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That
would bring
down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the
admission
fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a
wider range
of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel stay
for a lot
of people.
This idea has been tossed around before. The rationale for
maintaining large meetings, all under "one roof" has been to
maintain coherency across all of the areas. I was told that there
have been times in some other standards bodies where one area will
develop a standard that is completely incompatible with a standard
developed by another area. ("I was told" meaning that I have
forgotten all the particulars of the story by now.) While all we
should need is the IESG to be present together, by the time you
count up the areas and weeks in a year and the ability of the IESG
to travel...we just keep up having our large conventions.
Take a look at this for an extreme counter example:
http://www.itu.int/events/monthlyagenda.asp?lang=en
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf